Day 2, Session 5: The role of tenure and governance in climate change mitigation and adaptation
Presentation by Alain Karsenty, Economist, Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement (CIRAD)
2. Competing architectures or philosophies for
REDD
(a) Market-based and centralized scheme (“mainstream” approach):
crediting countries for national result (outputs) against a baseline
(historical, predicted, regional or global)
- Fully fungible carbon credits
- Partially or not-fungible carbon credits
(b) International fund and centralized: countries rewarded with
money (“Brazilian proposal”)
(c) Market-based and decentralized: certified projects get directly
carbon credits, along with countries (“nested” approach)
(d) International fund for financing (sectoral and extra-sectoral)
policies & measures, and country-broad PES schemes. No
baselines requested, but investments in agriculture changes, land
tenure and land-use incentives for farmers
(a), (b) (c) are about rewarding outputs of deforestation reduction;
(d) is about financing changes in policies and economic structures
(inputs). It is conditional to commitments.
PES can be a common feature to all architectures
3. The expected booming of PES
• Whatever the architecture decided for REDD, market or
funds, PES will be used for local initiatives regarding
carbon
• Some claim local communities should be granted with
‘carbon entitlements’
• ‘Carbon’ is not a good nor a service, ‘avoided emissions’
is a service contributing to a global public good: climate
change mitigation
• If the carbon property issue does not make sense, the
one of the tenure of the resources supporting the
environmental services delivered matters
• But the principle of PES is to reward for active
contribution to public goods, not to serve rents to passive
recipients in the name of their ‘property rights’
4. PES are not about selling public goods but
compensating the freezing of use rights
• In this sense, property rights are second in PES logic,
behaviour (‘active contribution’) should come first
– True at local and international level
• However…
• PES - in real world - are not about selling environmental
services but are, in most cases, a compensation for the
freezing of some local use rights (e.g. customary right to
clear the land)
– Compensations are supposed to be set at the opportunity cost
(even though an unrealistic assumption)
• Such use rights are associated with land/resources
tenure rights, and those lasts have to be mapped,
registered and recognized for enabling the management
of the formers
– A major evolution but not a revolution…
– In many African countries, will need to modify the conception of
the ‘State Domain’ for taking into account those tenure rights
5. PES and law
• One drawback effect of PES: actors would claim to be
paid for complying with the law…
• Need to define places/territories where administrative
regulation (command and control) will be used and
others where incentives (economic instruments such as
PES) will be favored
• For governments, need to set up appropriate frameworks
of lands and resources classification
– Set a permanent forest estate (raison d’être of any zoning plan)
where the priority will be given to administrative regulation
– States authorities will have to define a limited amount of lands
claimed (domaine privé de l’Etat) … and to establish it in law
(gazetting/classement/titling) in order to move away from the
presumption of lands being “State Domain”, a presumption not
compatible with the rule of law
6. Limitations of carbon PES:
deforestation is not a forestry issue
• PES are useful tools, but paying farmers to stop clearing forests
without providing them with long-term revenue alternatives and new
economic models is unsustainable:
– escalating opportunity costs with growing land needs
– high transaction costs to control moral hazard
– growing numbers of PES candidates
– infinite horizon of the payments…
• Food demand is (and will be) increasing, agric. productivity is
stagnating in Asia and population is booming in Africa
• Keeping in mind the right hierarchy: if the world fails to foster a new
(doubly) green revolution, forests will continue to decline
• Huge challenge: massive investment required on agric. practices,
agroforestry, land tenure rights, rural credits, insurances for small
scale farmers, price stability…
• PES costs will go well beyond the opportunity cost: the right costs
are those of the new agrarian revolution which is needed urgently in
Africa and in many other places of the world
